IMPORTANT POINT
The court highlighted the necessity of a clear employer-employee relationship and adherence to procedural requirements for termination under the Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act.

JUDGMENT :

Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.

Learned counsel for the petitioners/employer would submit that this is the petition against the Award dated 04.12.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Dehradun (Annexure No.1), whereby the application filed by the respondent no.1 under Section 6-F of Uttar Pradesh Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter to be referred as “The Act”) was allowed thereby directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent no.1 in service without backwages.

2. He would further submit that the respondent no.1/workman was not the regular employee of the petitioners and there is no master-servant relationship between them at all as he was a outsourced employee of respondent no.2; that, there was a contract between the petitioners and respondent no.2 i.e. Self Help Group Vidyut Upbhokta Sewa Samiti to the effect that respondent no.2 will supply the workforce to execute the work of the petitioners as and when required; that, the contract was with respondent no.2, which is a Samiti (Society) of which respondent no.1 is one of the member.

3. He would further submit that on 13.01.2022, respondent no.1 reported at the work in inebriated/drunk condition, therefore, he was not able to execute his work properly and was not complying with instructions of his job; that, in his inebriated condition he was misbehaving with the staff of the petitioners and the costumers; that, because of inebriated condition of respondent no.1, he was medically examined by the Medical Officer of Community Health Centre Vikasnagar, Dehradun and the medical report confirmed that respondent no.1 was inebriated, his speech was slurred, the gait was unsteady and his pupil were dilated and Medical Officer opined that respondent no.1 had consumed alcohol; that, respondent no.1 was unable to execute the work assigned, therefore, a letter was written to the Smiti by the petitioners to substitute the respondent no.1 with another person so that the work should not stop.

4. He would further submit that the respondent no.1 then raised the industrial dispute before the Labour Court and filed Misc. Case No.03 of 2023 praying that the act of the petitioners should be declared null and void and respondent no.1 be given all the benefit with continuity in service.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that this was purely a case of misconduct by a labourer supplied by a Smiti on contract who was not in the regular employment of the petitioners. He would further submit that there was a contract between the petitioner and respondent no.2 and there was no formal engagement of respondent no.1 in personal capacity; and respondent no.1 was not directly employed by the petitioner.

6. He would further submit that the Misc. Case No.03 of 2023 could not have been filed in Adjudication Case No. 20 of 2019 as the proceeding of Adjudication Case No. 20 of 2019 had no connection with the present case. He would further submit that the proceedings of the Adjudication Case No. 20 of 2019 was by C.I.T.U. in the Labour Court with prayer of Equal Pay For Equal Work and regularization of services and that was the broader question and there was no dispute pending in Adjudication Case No. 20 of 2019 of whatsoever nature between the petitioners and respondent no.1 directly, therefore, deciding the Misc. Case No. 03 of 2023 by impugned award is misconceived and unsustainable.

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no.1 would submit that as per Section 2 (1)(iv) of the Act the petitioners shall be the employer of respondent no.1. He would further submit that as per Section 6 (E) of the Act, conditions of service should have remained unchanged during the pendency of the proceedings of the Adjudication Case No. 20 of 2019 and if at all the petitioners had to remove the respondent no.1 from the duty then before terminating or removing the workman from service the petitioners should have paid wages for one month and filed an application before the Labour Court in pending